Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Deterrence Only Works If A Credible Deterrent Exists

Instapundit links to a Business Insider article that doesn't bode well for peace in our time in the Pacific.

As stated in the article, the Chinese professional in question postulated a lightning strike by the Chinese to take the disputed Senkaku/Diayou/Tiaoutai islands currently controlled by Japan before Japan could react.

The Chinese professional acknowledged that if China asserted control over the disputed islands by attacking Japan, America would have to stand with Japan. And he acknowledged that China did not want to provoke America.

The important and unasked question is, would America, under Obama, be actually willing to go to credibly threaten to go to war to defend the Japanese claims to a bunch of rocks in the Pacific?

After all the US State Department line on most provocative acts that have become fait accompli so far is to either pose the question "What difference at this point does it make?", or to waltz away from declared red lines.

This administration does not have a very credible history that demonstrates a real deterrent to aggression, now does it? It's partly due to this that Japan is looking to others for aid and boosting its military capabilities.

As Instapundit says, what could go wrong?


Tam said...

Rejoice! The Chrysanthemum Fleet sails the high seas once more!

Aaron said...

I was forlornly hoping they'd convert to Judaism first before assembling the Kido Butai so that their battle cry will be "Torah! Torah! Torah!"

ProudHillbilly said...

@Aaron - Grooooaaaannnnn!

Old NFO said...

Not going to end well...